Stats on attack on women by men self identifying as women?

[Bb2019]

Hello everyone,

I've been lurking on this board and generally following the mainstream uk press about trans issues including the JK Rowling debate etc.

I've been shocked with the likes of Mermaids and the Tavistock centre prescribing under 18s life changing treatments.

I'm still trying to understand the implications and form an informed opinion on the use of women only places by trans women. I understand it would make many women uncomfortable if it were obvious.

Do we have any statistics or research done on how often women or girls have been attacked in their own spaces by men passing as trans women and or by trans women? I know it happens anecdotally but how much more likely is it to happen? Is it isolated incidents or is the risk much heightened? Perhaps it's not possible to do this type of research though due to a paucity of data?

Thanks!

6.6 to 18 times higher, depending on the crime

Been a while since I looked at it but wasn't that the adjusted hazard ratio? The unadjusted hazard ratio is what is relevant when comparing at group level and I recall it being higher than that.

Crude was 7.4 and 20.

I thought that still sounded too low but it was the wide confidence intervals I was remembering.

Post-op MtF are anywhere between 6 and 66 times more likely to commit violent crimes than women.

As jj mentioned, being post-op probably makes a difference to crime rates. It would certainly be interesting to see the ratio in the self-identification scenario but somehow I can't imagine that study ever getting funding.

It's maybe not a funding issue, but a methodology/selection issue. This is a gold standard study, oft cited, because its authors analysed the data of the entire Swedish population using population registers and benefiting from the way in which its population is registered as well as the way genital surgery in Sweden is accessed by transsexuals.

So if a person was diagnosed and then had surgery, the study included them. I don't actually know of any other study that provided a complete picture on a country basis. No recruitment, no selection bias, just two criteria. If an individual matched both, they were included.

Such unbiased, comprehensive data collection just isn't possible with a study based on self-identifying individuals. Just from a technical perspective.

4 crimes, decades old ambiguous data, you may be able to convince yourselves on here that this is evidence of something but out in the real world you'd just look daft attempting to draw any conclusions from such weak evidence.

I made no claims of the study proving anything by the way, I simply disputed that it constituted legitimate evidence that trans women retain male patterns of criminality and violence.

@jj1968

4 crimes, decades old ambiguous data, you may be able to convince yourselves on here that this is evidence of something but out in the real world you'd just look daft attempting to draw any conclusions from such weak evidence.

I made no claims of the study proving anything by the way, I simply disputed that it constituted legitimate evidence that trans women retain male patterns of criminality and violence.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

@Kantastic

I thought that still sounded too low but it was the wide confidence intervals I was remembering.

Post-op MtF are anywhere between 6 and 66 times more likely to commit violent crimes than women.

As jj mentioned, being post-op probably makes a difference to crime rates. It would certainly be interesting to see the ratio in the self-identification scenario but somehow I can't imagine that study ever getting funding.

Source please

Source please

Djehne et al for the statistics. Earlier in this thread for jj's comment. FYI, the context should have made this abundantly clear to you, so while I'm happy to help you out I'm not going to indulge you with an argument.

Such unbiased, comprehensive data collection just isn't possible with a study based on self-identifying individuals. Just from a technical perspective.

It would be technically possible, you could use something like a GRC as a measure of self-identification. It just wouldn't be possible to get institutional co-operation or funding.

@Kantastic

Source please

Djehne et al for the statistics. Earlier in this thread for jj's comment. FYI, the context should have made this abundantly clear to you, so while I'm happy to help you out I'm not going to indulge you with an argument.

No link. Odd. Oh well.

the link is earlier in the thread! I do apologise, I didn't realise you wanted THIS level of spoonfeeding.

You made a number of claims about that study jj1968. I quoted directly from the study to counter your claims with the facts. The study analysed the post-op transsexual population of a whole albeit small country over decades. Longitudinal studies are precisely what we need to make the kind of serious policy decisions being made now.

I wonder if you appreciate how statistical analysis works or what longitudinal research means if you keep complaining about "decades old data" or "just 4 crimes" when the overall likelihood that a given individual commits a crime is small and the number of those who are successfully prosecuted is even smaller.

The transsexuals in the Swedish study were not only properly counselled btw, they were vetted before being allowed to transition. A process that eliminates those who seek to transition for nefarious reasons. No such safeguards exist with today's cohort of males who identify as trans.

And let's look at that cohort. According to GIRES, by 2015, a scant 15% of people who identify as trans in the UK had made contact with medical providers. That's contact. The number who have medically transitioned in any way is far smaller still.

If you read the science on transsexualism, you'll know that homosexual transsexuals transition early and tend to transition medically, most likely fully if they can. And the ratio of homosexual vs non-homosexual transsexuals depends on the individualism factor of the country they live in. The higher a society values individualism, the higher the percentage of non-homosexual transsexuals. Various studies have shown that the ratio is highest in Western countries. Conservatively, that's about 4 to 1 ie for every one homosexual transsexual there are four non-homosexual transsexuals. (Check Anne Lawrence's research on this. A respected researcher in this field, and someone who has transitioned, so with a lot of understanding and personal experience.)

Of course, today's trans umbrella includes a large number of people who identify as trans but have no intention to transition medically. US data shows that only 5% of people who identify as trans actually socially transition. So the statistics suggest that a large number of males who identify as trans in the UK today are not seeking to medically transition and don't socially transition either, which means they are mostly crossdressers. Studies into transvestism consistently show that the vast majority of crossdressers is male and straight.

So, given that the vast majority of males who identify as trans are fully intact males attracted to females, it is entirely correct to ask where is the evidence that these males pose a smaller risk to females than all other males. I would be particularly interested to know what would cause the risk to be lower in those who have, at most, socially transitioned.

You also said

If someone was trying to make a claim of increased criminality amongst a certain ethnic group or other marginalised group based on such weak evidence then I think most people might question the motivations of those making the claims

We are not making a claim of increased criminality amongst a sub group (here males who identify as trans), we state that criminality is neither increased nor decreased compared with the whole group (here all males).

You however are trying to make a claim of decreased criminality and on no evidence. I'm not questioning your motivation, but I am questioning whether you understand that the same conditions apply to both sides in a debate.

It does, however, exclude men who transition, who I understand are disproportionately subjected to assaults and violence at the hands of men generally

The problem s with men and male violence, not with women.

(I'm sure someone's said this already ... haven't RTFT am a bit Saturday night drink)

@CharlieParley My claim was that using the Swedish study to claim trans women retain male patterns of criminality is invalid. Four crimes is not anywhere near a viable sample and we don't even know for sure whether those crimes were committed by trans women or trans men.

I said I think for me, it feels intuitively likely that trans women do not possess male pattern criminality, largely because of the lack of any visible trans presence in things like street gangs, football firms, organised crime, terrorism etc and also because of the physical differences and likely different sexualities of medically transitioned trans women. As such I think there is a requirement of some evidence to suggest what is true of the set is also true of a subset of that set. To use a bit of a tortured analogy, I very much doubt male vicars commit crimes st the same rate as men overall, but I doubt there's any evidence either way for that either. I think, for me, the same applies here and at the very least the correct thing to say (in response to the op) is that we don't know whether trans women retain male pattern offending habits. There is no clear and published evidence either way and it is incorrect to suggest there is.

Regarding the rest I've tried to make it clear that I think there is a difference between someone who identifies as a trans, in all the different ways that can manifest, and someone who identifies as a trans woman. I'm not aware of any evidence that in countries and states which have adopted self ID that it has led to part time cross dressers choosing to legally become women. And of course there has been research into whether trans inclusion has caused an increased risk to women in places it's been introduced and that doesn't seem to be the case. This in a way is what really matters isn't it in regards to the ops question? I know we don't have the full study but I think the mediamatters investigations I linked to do add weight to the conclusion.

I absolutely fully recognise there are other arguments against trans inclusion such as dignity, comfort, trauma and all those mentioned upthread. But given there is now published evidence that has shown that trans inclusive policies have not impacted on women's safety, then I really think it is incumbent on those who claim that they do to provide some equally compelling evidence for the claim. And a decades old study with a tiny sample and inexact data (and which does not even directly address the risk of crime in women's spaces) is not very persuasive.

I very much doubt male vicars commit crimes st the same rate as men overall, but I doubt there's any evidence either way for that either

So by this analogy, safeguarding rules should also be relaxed for male vicars and priests in the way that you are in favour of relaxing safeguarding rules for transwomen?

given there is now published evidence that has shown that trans inclusive policies have not impacted on women's safety

there isn't. See further back in the thread. I know you saw that comment because you responded to it.

The evidence showing male pattern criminality in transwomen is, despite all the words you just typed, statistically valid. The study saying "we were unable to find that laws letting trans women into women's bathrooms made a difference in crime rates therefore they don't" is not even logically valid (and its conclusion is contradicted by other evidence anyway.)

There is no logical framework that can possibly support throwing away the good evidence about transwomen's male-pattern criminality and clinging on to the non-evidence in that one bathroom study. What you're doing is known as an "isolated demand for rigour", a subset of motivated reasoning (i.e. believing exactly what you want to believe while pretending you're being logical.) You're one of the most extreme cases of this I've ever seen.

@jj1968
In the UK, mixed sex changing rooms are associated with an 800%+ increase in sexual attacks on women, and also increase the risk of voyeurism and hidden cameras.
The vast majority of reported sexual assaults at public swimming pools in the UK take place in unisex changing rooms.
Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/unisex-changing-rooms-put-women-in-danger-8lwbp8kgk

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

for me, it feels intuitively likely that trans women do not possess male pattern criminality,

Maybe so, but this thread is about statistical evidence, which has been explained to you very clearly in support of precisely transwomen retaining male pattern criminality. There is your intuitive feeling, and there is the statistical evidence.

Additionally there don't seem to be be many trans women involved in gang violence, organised crime, terror, street fighting and many of the other crimes that often land men in jail.

This is mostly male on male violence. It's male on female violence that sex exemptions exist to deal with. I don't see the relevance of telling people that because there's a lack of male on male violence then female sex exemptions should be ignored.

The statistical evidence is four crimes, which could have been carried out by either a trans woman or a trans man. We don't know. Can you imagine if someone came on here making claims about criminality in women, or lesbians, or gay men, or people of colour, based on a study involving four crimes, which might not even have all been committed by the group in quesion? But I guess we won't agree, and I'm not sure there is much point continuing to discuss that particular study.

@Kantastic The bathroom study is legitimate evidence. It's perfectly acceptable and normal for scientists and researchers to go looking for something to see if it' happens and if they don't find it then that is evidence that it doesn't. Obviously in social sciences there are less hard edges, but in this case there is tangible data to work with - which states adopted trans inclusive policies, and was there a recorded increase in reported assaults in women's spaces afterwards. And the answer to that seems to be no. That means, in the US to date, trans inclusive policies have been shown not to correlate with an increased risk of assault in women's spaces. There is considerable expert testimony backing that up in the mediamatters investigations and so, I think it's not unreasonable for those who say that's all not true to actually provide some evidence for that. That is not an isolated demand for rigor, it is asking that if you claim the US study is wrong then you have something that backs that up. Show me counter evidence that indicates that where trans inclusive policies have been introduced it has led to an increase in criminal incidents.

Trans inclusive policies are written deliberately to disallow any reporting. If you haven't noticed that then you are filtering out the very framework being discussed.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3238991-Charlotte-takes-a-taxi?pg=6

Here's a high profile person making sure of this.

@Escapeplanning I do agree, the point I was trying to make is the lack of trans involvement in those kinds of crimes suggests that there are differences in patterns of violence and criminality between trans women and men and as such it shouldn;t be assumed that just because men behave one way then it follows that trans women will follow the same patterns.

This Never Happens
www.facebook.com/groups/1722756661380462/

Why? Thats a massive safeguarding failure. Safeguarding should come first. Explain why it should be put to one side for a self identified group?

Well that's definitely a new angle isn't it? Using ultra macho male on male gang violence (Kray brothers anyone) as a gotcha is a new low really.

@Thelnebriati I think that's a different concern really, it may well be that there is an elavated risk to women in mixed changing rooms although I found it frustrating that we never got to see the actual data or any information on which local authorities were contacted by FOI. I think it's concerning and more robust research would be a good idea. But there's no suggestion the increased risk was anything to do with trans women so I think it's a different issue, and one driven by cost cutting and a need to make places more family inclusive as much as any desire to appease trans people.